Morning star...

[Valiant For Truth]

On 08/12/2015 at 0:52 AM, Greenie said:

Niv. Isaiah 14 verse 12 says...

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

So in this verse satan is being called morning star...but in Revelation 22 verse 16 Jesus says

Niv. Revelation 22 verse 16

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright Morning Star.

So my question is how can satan be called morning star and Jesus be called morning star?  The only difference i see is that Jesus is called Bright Morning Star. Someone please clarify for me ....im sure im reading something out of context and i love how the members here put things in perspective

Dear Greenie,

The name "bright and Morning Star" Rev 22 v16, is a name for Jesus.

Where the name morning star has been put in in the NIV, in Isaiah 14 v12, as a name for satan, is wrong: as far as I am concerned It is the work of satan, to take one of the names of Jesus Christ, and give it to himself (satan).

Isaiah 14 v12 in the KJV is "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!".

It all comes down to Bible translations, and the NIV as well as most modern bibles, have been translated from different manuscripts, than what the KJV and a few others have been translated from, and from a few examples of the two, so you can see which one is God's word.

Matthew 18 v 11
KJV 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV 11 gone!

Luke 4 v 4
KJV 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
NIV 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.' "
 

Mark 11 v 26
KJV 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV 26 gone as well!

Matthew 5 v 44
KJV 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
NIV 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

If you want to know more, I just tell me and I can get you some more information.

[post]

i'm given to understand that when the KJV was made, the word "helel" was not "translated" in the strict sense of the word, but what was interjected into the English was the Latin word "lucifer," taken directly from the vulgate. that word, "helel" is only used once in the entire Bible, and its meaning is not entirely clear. Strong's uses the KJV as a basis to give definitions - so it's not the best source for actual Greek or Hebrew meaning. the meaning of this word was not apparently clear to the translators of the KJV either - or they would have used an English word, instead of this Latin one. in the Latin version of the Bible (the Vulgate), the word 'lucifer' appears 4 times, not just there in Isaiah, and interestingly, also in 2 Peter 1:19 -- ".. and the day star rise in your heart" in the Vulgate that's "lucifer" rise in your heart. obviously, "lucfer" in latin isn't a proper name -- it's a word referring to Venus, meaning literally something like "shining" -- which is where Strong's gets it's "definition" -- Strong's is really more of a "glossary" than a dictionary. 

the Greek of Revelation 22:16 on the other hand is explicit, not just a single word, but literally "the bright morning star" ((reference: Revelation 22:16 in Greek))

so -- the misunderstanding & confusion here comes from the prevalence of the KJV, with ignorance of the original languages, and blind acceptance of it as a "perfect" translation.  the actual meaning of "helel" in Hebrew is not clearly understood. and, in the case of either verse, "morning star" should be read as a "title" rather than a "proper name" -- then there is no logical problem, seeing how that Satan has fallen, with accepting that Christ has been given the honorific that he once held, the 'star of the morning' -- in neither case is the scripture saying that either Satan or Christ is literally the planet Venus, but as metaphor, the bright light that rises in the morning, as Peter uses the term to signify the Lord 'rising' in our hearts.

i found this article to be very good at explaining all this - encourage the reader to have a look. it's primary purpose is addressing KJV-only-ism, but the author there lays out all the facts relevant to this thread's question there in order to present a case against the KJV's claim. so, lol, if you're a KJV-only person, you're not going to like the link , but that's all the mroe reason i think, that you should also give it a read. 

[Ezra]

8 hours ago, post said:

i found this article to be very good at explaining all this - encourage the reader to have a look. it's primary purpose is addressing KJV-only-ism, but the author there lays out all the facts relevant to this thread's question there in order to present a case against the KJV's claim. so, lol, if you're a KJV-only person, you're not going to like the link , but that's all the mroe reason i think, that you should also give it a read. 

That article really contributes little to our understanding of the difference between Lucifer son of the morning and Christ as the morning star. And the writer's claim that some of the modern translations are superior to the KJV is basically false. One cannot have a superior Bible which is based upon corrupt manuscripts. The context of Isaiah 14:12-17 makes it quite clear that this is about a rebellious angelic being who wants to make himself God, or even higher than God.  

And denigrating Strong's Exhaustive Concordance does not benefit anyone, but we see more and more of this kind of trashing of respected Bible study aids today. Strong's is a standard and reliable work and Bible Hub confirms that.

[post]

46 minutes ago, Ezra said:

That article really contributes little to our understanding of the difference between Lucifer son of the morning and Christ as the morning star.

can i ask, out of curiosity, do you believe the KJV is the one and only perfect word of God in English and is above reproach or improvement?
i hope not. but i think either you didn't really follow the article, or because of some offense you took, rejected it out of hand. 

i'm sorry that you seem so offended, but this article points out that the word "lucifer" is not a proper name, but a Latin word which was variously used in the Vulgate as a translation for different Hebrew & Greek words. in the KJV, it was not translated in the passage in Isaiah 14, probably because the proper meaning of the word "helel" - which is the original Hebrew in that passage - was not known to the KJV translators, and is not really reliably known now either. if it was a "proper name" then the Hebrew would say "lucifer" but it certainly does not. it is the only place in the Bible that "helel" is found. the notion that it stems from "halal" is not completely accepted and has plausible scholarly objections. it may certainly not even mean "shining one" - though probably something not entirely dissimilar. 

so this sheds light on the "difference" in that it is not even clear what "helel" means -- though "lucifer" has meaning "morning star" in Latin, and the NIV takes that and inserts it, the KJV does not  render "lucifer" as "morning star" in every place it is found in the Vulgate, and only in Isaiah 14 does it leave the word untranslated. so the comparison of the term "morning star" - which i think should be seen as an honorific, not a name - between the passages in Revelation and in Isaiah, is very possibly based on something that does not exist at all. that is, this is not the same term; (helel) son of the morning (in Isaiah) does not equal bright morning star (in Revelation). key to all of that is that "lucifer" is not a name, according to the text. it's unfortunate that the KJV leads people to believe that. 

i am not 'denigrating' Strong's concordance. a concordance is not a dictionary. that is what i'm pointing out. Strong used the KJV translation to compile a concordance of all the ways that words were translated by the KJV translators. so if something is not correct, or not translated, in the KJV, Strong's will shed no light on it. it remains a standard and reliable work, but it has shortcomings -- it is not a lexicon. it is a concordance. not a dictionary. it is an index of all the Hebrew and Greek words in the KJV with a list of how the KJV translates them, and root words associated with them, according to the KJV work. not a set of definitions. there is a difference. that doesn't "denigrate" Strong's -- though it might come as a reality check in some cases, this one being one of those cases. 

i hope that helps you understand what i meant, and why i think that article is helpful to this question.

Edited December 28, 2015 by post

[post]

here's what might be a useful little explanation of what Strong's is and isn't: 
how NOT to use Strong's concordance

understanding that Strong's is not a dictionary, and that "lucifer" is a Latin word, not a Hebrew one, and not a name, but a noun, and that it exists in the KJV because it was not translated from Hebrew into English but was instead substituted for the Hebrew 'helel' directly from the Vulgate together with the knowledge that 'helel' is a word whose meaning is not entirely clear, should, i think, add to our understanding of why there is confusion regarding this verse in Isaiah and the verse in Revelation 22. 

if you think the KJV is beyond reproach, and cannot be improved on, you should read the 1611 preface written by the translators themselves ((found here)), and if you still think Strong's is a lexicon or dictionary, you're going to have some trouble following why this sheds light on the topic at hand. 

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Greenie

     I do hope you have had your question answered & find the explanation satisfactory(despite all the different translations now being discussed) The fact of the matter you actually hit upon yourself

Quote

The only difference i see is that Jesus is called Bright Morning Star.                                               posted by Greenie                                             

Yes,that is the difference....

Quote

Later, in 2 Cor. 11:14, Paul accused Satan of masquerading as an angel of light. This confirms that both Lucifer and shining one are appropriate titles for him. But in the Lord’s own words, He alone is the Bright Morning Star.                                                              posted by Rick_Parker

God Bless you & to God be the Glory!!!!                                                                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

[SINNERSAVED]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 7:42 AM, Valiant For Truth said:

Dear Greenie,

The name "bright and Morning Star" Rev 22 v16, is a name for Jesus.

Where the name morning star has been put in in the NIV, in Isaiah 14 v12, as a name for satan, is wrong: as far as I am concerned It is the work of satan, to take one of the names of Jesus Christ, and give it to himself (satan).

Isaiah 14 v12 in the KJV is "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!".

It all comes down to Bible translations, and the NIV as well as most modern bibles, have been translated from different manuscripts, than what the KJV and a few others have been translated from, and from a few examples of the two, so you can see which one is God's word.

Matthew 18 v 11
KJV 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
NIV 11 gone!

Luke 4 v 4
KJV 4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
NIV 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.' "
 

Mark 11 v 26
KJV 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV 26 gone as well!

Matthew 5 v 44
KJV 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
NIV 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

If you want to know more, I just tell me and I can get you some more information.

Dear valiant,for truth , I am very interested in the link of bible scripture miss  understanding and what is taken out that others have, and how to know which bible or information can help in seeing the translations as we need to help our selves , please post the link for that , that would be great

thank you

[Qnts2]

In my opinion, Isaiah 14:12 is NOT mistranslated. 

The phrase in question is 'heylel ben shachar'.

A direct translation would be 'bright son of the morning'. Or bright morning star, in reference to the morning star of Venus. Lucifer was the highest of angels, bright, and promising like the morning. But, as the verse says, Lucifer fell. And angel who had so much gifting and promise, like a bright morning star, fell dismally.  Lucifer fell and was cut down. Lucifer deceives the nations.

Isaiah 14 is speaking about the position of Lucifer initially, and then about how far he has fallen due to his desire to be like God.

I don't know Greek, so could not do an honest or decent attempt to translate, but we know the Jesus is a bright morning star, the highest above the angels, bright and full of promise, but Jesus did not fall. 

Bright Morning Star is an expression.

 

[other one]

whether we call him Lucifer, or refer to him as Bright Morning Star, does it really matter as long as we understand who we are talking about and who he was and now is, and where he's going and that he will try his best to take you with him.

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, post said:

can i ask, out of curiosity, do you believe the KJV is the one and only perfect word of God in English and is above reproach or improvement?

Since I have done the necessary research, yes, I can say without any reservation that relative to all existing modern translations, the KJV is the one and only perfect Word of God in English at present.  Does that mean that the English translation could not be improved?  No. What it does mean is that every attempt to improve the KJV has been a failure, starting with the Revised Version of 1881.

Let's just take Isaiah 14:12 as our example.  The KJV has correctly translated this as 

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs have the literal meaning as "a shining one" and the name "Lucifer" means exactly that. Also "son of the morning" and "son of dawn" are the exact translations as shown below, and the word "star" is not found here, but is inserted gratuitously:

Strong's Concordance

helel: a shining one

Original Word: הֵילֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: helel
Phonetic Spelling: (hay-lale')
Short Definition: morning

Brown-Driver-Briggs

הֵילֵל Isaiah 14:12 see below הלל.

הִים see הוּם.

הֵילֵל noun masculine appellative shining one, epithet of king of Babylon, בֶּןשָֿׁ֑חַר ׳אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם ה Isaiah 14:12 how art thou fallen, shinning one, son of dawn ! i.e. star of the morning. [notice, i.e. which is an interpretation].

The modern versions have paraphrased and mistranslated "shining one" to "morning star" (NIV), "shining star" (NLT), "day star" (ERV, ESV, ASV), "star of the morning" (NASV), "shining morning star" (Holman).  Since "day star" and "morning star" apply to Christ, these are all perversions.  Young's literal translation proves it:

How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations.

Also, it is evident that you do not possess a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, since it has both Hebrew and Greek dictionaries which are second to none.